A gun in the hand beats a cop on the phone

30 Responses

When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Better to take some responsibility for your personal safety(not necessarily with a firearm) and let the police gather the evidence from a chastened, prone member of the future felons of America. Also remember, a .22 in your hand trumps a knife in his.

Handguns with less than 7-shot magazines, who that poor little waif appears to be using, are UNTOUCHED by the NY SAFE Act. Also by having that gun in her home, she is much more likely for the weapon to be used AGAINST her, than in self defense. She doesn’t appear to be wielding an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine, both of which are now banned for sale in NY.

Under the NY SAFE Act existing assault weapons are also required to be registered in NY. I’m sure you feel that registration data will be used to transmit the names to the US Department of Homeland Security, at the behest of the “tyrannical Governor Cuomo. The DHS will know where to send the black helios to confiscate them, right? Gunnut paranoia is so amusing.

Honestly, in the situation shown in the picture, she should call 911. Her attacker has a blunt object, she has a gun.

Pointing the gun at him, making a citizen’s arrest and calling the cops so they can arrest him. The implication seems to be that if you have a gun you don’t need the cops and vice-versa, but I don’t see why that has to be the case.

Short answer, yes, she should call 911 instead of shooting him, but that doesn’t mean she should put her gun away and let him beat/rob/rape her while she waits for the police to arrive.

@Bart, For what it’s worth, that could easily be a 10 round or larger magazine in that picture. There are only a very small handful of firearms that have 7 round-or-less mags available. One of the major issues with the new law is that it effectively is a backdoor ban on semi-auto pistols, the kind most commonly used for sporting and self defense. The NYS Sheriff’s Association agrees:

“Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.”

I’m not a gun-nut. I’ve never owned an AR15 or similar “assault” style firearm. I do think people should be allowed to purchase them, as well as 10+ round magazines if they pass the NICS background check (which should be improved and expanded upon).

@Fyregoddess:
The Kleck and Gertz study cites firearms used defensively at 2.5 million times per year but doesn’t take into account when a shot doesn’t have to be fired which is very difficult to quantify but something this picture is showing.

I only wish NY was a “stand your ground state” as opposed to having the “duty to retreat”. One administrator in our school when asked by students what to do if approached by another student looking for a fight. The administrator replied that they should “curl up in a ball on the floor and let them kick you” at which point I got up and explained that in NYS you have the right to defend yourself (after the duty to retreat) and in some cases can use lethal force (police in the line of duty and in your own home – case law actually extends that to even if you were visiting and defending someone else’s home)but that there may still be some consequences for your actions.

@#6, Knuckles:
Thank you for making this point about the 7 round magazine provision of the law that amounts to an effective ban on many handguns for which 7 round magazines are not made. I believe this was an intentional manuever by Gov Cuomo. Since many people are unfamiliar with handguns generally, they see this law as a reasonable restriction. Knowledgeable firearms owners see this for what it is…an effective ban on a large number of commonly owned handguns (and some shotguns and long guns as well). For those who are trying to understand why firearms owners are so opposed to this law…this is one of the reasons.

@2,
Why is that woman a waif? I see nothing to indicate she’s homeless. Even if she was, does that mean she’s not allowed to defend herself? Your hate has made you incapable of rational thought.

@3
Liberal true believers will distort a situation to make it fit their own beliefs. That ‘blunt object’ is raised in an aggressive posture, within strike range, and still in the attackers hands after he clearly sees the handgun. What makes you think he will surrender? Also, do you watch too much television? Clean kills are not a guarantee. Bullets do not knock people 5 feet in the air. Should this woman surrender her own life because YOU don’t feel a need for individuals to protect themselves?

@5
So according to your logic we should make enforcement decisions based on the cost. Will this new database and registration requirement save the state money?

@#3, Fryegoddess:
I understand your sentiment. Let me tell you what I see in this picture. The woman is pointing her handgun at the attacker and her finger is on the trigger. Every basic firearms training course that I am familiar with teaches the four basic rules of safe firearms handling. Two of these rules are “never point a firearm at anything you don’t intend to destroy” and “finger off the trigger until you are on the target and ready to shoot”. Another thing that we learn is that an attacker can move 10-12 feet in a matter of 2 seconds or less..which means that this woman may have only had that much time to draw her handgun, point and shoot. If the attacker were to break off the attack at the sight of the handgun then good for both of them…but I guess my point is I don’t think people in this situation can count on having enough time to pull out their cell phone and therefore that should be the second thing they pull out.

#9 Kool Aid mand and # 10 Tony, Agreed! People see TV and think its real. The attacker is way too close and possesses a deadly blunt force weapon. Firing is appropriate, indicated by his positioning and intent. I would not second guess her for placing her finger on the trigger.
911 can be called once the immediate situation threatening her personal safety has been remedied, with the perp on the ground and unable to continue the threat of assault. To do otherwise would be sheer idiocy.

Bart, there is no way to determine from the pic the magazine capacity of the woman’s weapon.

From the picture this would be a justified shooting. She is already down and can’t retreat. While he has a blunt object it is coming down to her head. That people is called deadly physical force. You meet DPF with DPF, anything less is bad. I really can’t speak to the weapon. However I do have a question. Why do you think it is OK for the state to tell you how much your life is worth, in this case 7 rounds. When I am on duty I carry 40, 2 magazines of 13, and 14 in the pistol. My life is not worth any more then yours, so you should be able to carry the same amount I can.

“Why does it have to be all or nothing”, a great question. The problem is that the one asking that question should be the jerk with the club. Is whatever he hopes to take from that woman, worth his life?

I’m going to presume you’re being deliberately silly, fryegoddes, or you just woke up today in an argumentive mood. The woman in this picture owes her attacker NOTHING. He is threatening her, and she would every right to stop him, however SHE believes necessary.

Considering the distance between them and their relative positions, she should be preparing for about the 3rd shot in this photo. There will be more than ample time to notify 911 after the pictured thug hits the ground.

After my military duty was over I experienced having a loaded and unlocked gun pointed at my head. I was hunted and trapped so to speak. No chance to defend myself before hand. If I had a gun on me, they would taken it. Fortunately I was able to escape (long story) and the two assailants went to prison.

In my experience the scenario allows you to be able to defend yourself before a criminal gets the drop on you is really quite rare. Many are cowards who strike from the rear or when you must unaware.

That is why the laws regulating guns must focused on allowing you to have a gun and not the bad guy who wants to rob you. Certainly you are in favor of closing straw sales in favor of through background checks. Yes?

#18 @Troy Taxpayer:
Good point…This is the type of discussion that should have taken place during the consideration of this legislation…had there been a reasonable amount of time to review and comment on the proposed bill before it was passed.

Regarding the 7-shot magazine issue, I’m sure the gun manufacturers will be soon, if not now, making magazines that will comply with NYS law. Also, I’m pretty sure the law allows for permanent modifications to existing excess-capacity magazines.

Regarding the Sheriff Association misguided stance, let’s just look at the mass murder at Congressman’s Gabby Gifford’s Congress on Your Corner in Arizona. Gifford’s husband, Navy Captain and Space Shuttle Commander Mark Kelly, stated under oath in his Congressional testimony this January that the large capacity magazine, with out a doubt, was responsible for the murder of 9yr old Christina Taylor-Green who was in attendance. She was killed by the 13th shot of the shooter’s 1st large capacity magazine. He continued shooting and emptied the magazine. He was only apprehended because he tried to change to a fresh magazine. If the shooter had a reduced-capacity magazine, 9yr old Christina Taylor-Green would be alive today.

Reducing magazine capacity, as well as the NY SAFE Act, will unquestionably save lives.

‘This is the type of discussion that should have taken place during the consideration of this legislation…had there been a reasonable amount of time to review and comment on the proposed bill before it was passed.’
_____________________________________________________

No disagreement there. But that ship has sailed. My opinion is that the focus should be on fixing the parts that overreach rather than condemning everything with overly antagonistic rhetoric.

I am however not opposed to loudly voicing condemnation for the speed at which the legislation was pushed through. Just remember, it passed with bi-partisan support. Plenty of blame to go around for that one.

No one is going to be making custom magazines for just one state, that’s simply not going to happen. Most firearm and magazine distributors are now simply refusing to ship anything to NY, it’s not worth their time nor their money trying to figure out a vague and rushed through law. This will be one of the points argued in several legal actions.

For a law to be enforceable, there can’t be substantial obstacles to compliance, and in this case, NYS is restricting legal gun owners to a product that simply doesn’t exist. And they either knew that when they wrote the law, or were just too stupid or lazy to research it beforehand. It’s either one or the other, and personally I love it, it’s one of the best arguments in a case where our chances in court were already in our favor.

You say the situation to defend yourself is quite rare? This law was enacted in response to the shooting of children in a school, or so we were told. There was a chance for people in that school to defend themselves if they were properly equiped. However, gun free zones are soft targets for violent criminals because they know law abiding citizens will not be armed. As that murderer walked into that school he knew he’d have no resistance. So, wouldn’t a more reasonable law to pass include the elimination of gun free zones? As a father, I would support faculty and staff exercising their 2nd amendment rights because they may be the only person between my son and a psychotic murderer.

Now, we all understand we may not have the opportunity to draw our weapon if attacked. However, does this mean we should abandon carrying in total? We should allow ourselves to be at the mercy of criminals? All us legal gun owners don’t have an issue with background checks. However, this law in total is a complete disaster. It’s time to repeal it. Specifics can be discussed, vetted, and implemented in seperate bills. Do you think the liberals would be open to that suggestion or keep what they rammed through?

BTW white, I don’t think you’ll have any luck censoring us on this thread.

Auto manufacturers make vehicles to comply with California’s more stringent air quality rev’s. I’m sure that the manufacturers of massacre-assisting guns and magazines will try to make sure that the gunnut ‘s imagined right to own massacre-assisting implements will be available.

@ Bart. So you imagine that weapon manufacturers will make a NY compliant magazine for my 50 yr old weapons? One has been out of business since about ’72, the other one uses magazines that cost over $30 a piece. And they don’t make a NY compliant(7rd) magazine. So they have put a serious imposition on legal compliance.

@ Kool Aid Man. I too worry about the designation, Gun Free Zone. A gun free zone to a criminal is tantamount to a free pass. I have great respect for anyone who was able to keep their head in the Aurora shooting. Only a military trained operative of the highest order would have had a chance of helping in that environment.

I have seen weapon accidents by trained law enforcement. I’ve had law enforcement weapons pointed in my direction for simple traffic stops, totally unnecessarily. When you have a young cop pointing a .357 at you, and you can almost smell his nervousness, its indeed a scary thing. I’ve been stopped and frisked, stopped because my car ‘fit a description’ searched at concerts, all when I had 0 weapons. I do know they(police) can be scared when doing stops, and try my best to show them I am not a threat.

I have respect for weapons, and the reason for owning or carrying one. Its not a responsibility to take lightly. I carry responsibly, and lock things up.
Yet, we still have law enforcement getting into DWI accidents, some(most) while carrying weapons. Just look into the TU archives. And most never see print.

Bart, do you realize that the legal, responsible gun owners did abide by the pre-SAFE Act laws? I’m talking about respectable, law abiding citizens, not criminals. You may be thinking “what’s your point, ase?” My point is that a responsible gun owner was NOT responsible for the Arizona shooting. Or the Aurora, CO shooting. Or the Newtown, CT shooting. Our idiot governor’s new legislation applies only to those responsible, law abiding citizens who own firearms and have no intention of carrying out an offensive attack.

Good grief – do you really think stable people purchase a firearm wanting, hoping to use it to shoot another human being while unprovoked?

Note: The Times Union is not responsible for posts and comments written by non-staff members.